Cymbeline Act 1.1.125-179

Cymbeline is, of course, the heavy-handed father/king (all such tales have to have one, or something similar). Note the “heavy” excess of his opening lines–“basest thing” “avoid” “unworthiness,” “poison.” The broad verbal brush strokes indicate the stereotype. Postumus naturally beats a swift retreat (as, of course, he must for plot necessity). Then follows a daughter/father scene that has undertones of King Lear. Imogen possesses the innocent qualities of Cordelia and like her pleads with her father, simultaneously displaying the same kind of good sense and bravery that Cordelia does in the face of mindless authority. Cymbeline wanted her to marry his step-son (Cloten); Imogen remarks tellingly: “I chose an eagle / And did avoid a puttock” (a hint of forthcoming imagery, and a clue as to Cloten’s character and how he should be played). Naturally, Imogen’s observation does nothing to assuage Cymbeline who, true to fairy tale “lore” orders Imogen to be locked up: “let her languish / A drop of blood a day and, being aged, /Die of this folly.” In connection with this, note the Queen’s insincere’s protestations. The scene ends with the arrival of Posthumus’s servant, Pisano, a crucial element in the plot (and every hero needs a faithful, knowledgeable servant at hand). His noteworthy news is that Cloten drew his sword on Posthumus “But that my master rather played than fought / And had no help of anger.” Clearly Cloten is not much of anything, certainly in comparison with Posthumus.

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.
© 2008

Cymbeline Act 1.1.106-24

And now a short break with our two young lovers; after all, every fairy tale needs two young lovers who must face all kinds of difficulties, and here they contemplate their separation. Of course, this should remind us of Shakespeare’s earlier works. Indeed, Cymbeline is full of self-reference, almost as if Shakespeare is playing a game of “can you spot the allusion?” In so ding, Shakespeare is turning his work into a meta-theatrical event, thereby raising the audience’s awareness that they are indeed watching a play, part of whose function is to evoke other plays. In short, this play becomes a sort of commentary on the art of play writing, and on the nature of the theatre itself. Here in thinking of separation Shakespeare evokes Romeo and Juliet in Imogen’s short phrase “Such parting were too petty,” reminding us of Juliet’s “Parting is such sweet sorrow” (2.1.185). (If you don’t find this particularly convincing, subsequent similar allusions to other plays might well do in retrospect). On top of that, Shakespeare now throws in the old theatrical trick of the lovers exchanging tokens–Imogen gives Posthumus a ring, he gives her a bracelet (described somewhat paradoxically as a “manacle of love,” and interestingly Imogen has enjoined him to wear the ring “till you woo another wife / When Imogen is dead”). The ever-alert viewer now knows that both ring and bracelet will become important plot-resolving elements and need to be followed attentively. As if to underline the point, the tokens are no sooner exchanged and Imogen has said “O the gods! / When shall we see again!” than ENTER CYMBELINE AND LORDS!! Every such plot story needs a heavy-handed, tyrannical king to intervene–and voila!!

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.
© 2008

Cymbeline Act 1.1.70-105

These lines actually provides three very short sub-scenes and, like the opening, draw attention to their creaky dramatic structure–so much so that there can be little doubt that all is quite deliberate. As the 2 Gents exit, the Queen enters with Posthumus and Imogen and quickly establishes the fairy tale relationship between herself and Imogen. Imogen is her stepdaughter, and we know how stepdaughters (or any stepchild for that matter) is treated with in fairy tales. Moreover, the fact that the Queen (note she is nameless and thus generic) asserts that Imogen will not find her “evil-eyed unto you” immediately suggests that that is indeed her intention. The Queen is the stereotypical evil/wicked queen (or similar figure). Although she also says she has good intentions towards Posthumus (Imogen’s husband), we already sense the falsity, especially because both of them have incurred regal wrath for marrying–Imogen is a “prisoner,” Posthimus is about to leave the kingdom.

The creaky dramaturgy points itself out when the Queen declares “I’ll fetch a turn about the garden” (81), ostensibly out of sympathy for the young lovers. Practically, the purpose for getting her off-stage is so that Imogen can quickly fill in their own perspective and provide information. The first bit of information comes from Imogen who confirms our suspicions about the motives of the evil Queen: “Dissembling courtesy! How fie this tyrant / Can tickle where she wounds.” The remainder of their exchange,as one might expect involves them pledging their love for one another, etc., as well as Postumus letting us know he is off to Rome but that he will write letters. PLOT ALERT–geography and letters are to play a MAJOR role in the play, and we’d better pay close attention!!

The sub-scene ends with a quick interjection from the Queen (just popping in from her turn about the garden) to tell them to hurry up. Again, this “device” is blatant and obvious–almost as though Shakespeare is telling us so.

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.
© 2008

Cymbeline Act 1.1.1-69

Shakespeare begins the play with one of his formulaic scenes, namely an informational scene between two minor characters. Although they are “minor” they appear to know everything that has transpired prior to the opening of the play (however, since the audience is just settling in, it is not likely to raise such questions about how the two gents know everything). This formula is indeed a short cut to getting the play going; otherwise, Shakespeare would have to stage one or more scenes that would incorporate or illustrate this necessary information (and the play turns out to be a fairly long one). I think there’s no doubt, to state the obvious, that Shakespeare knows what he is doing; indeed, I think he is displaying his dramaturgy quite blatantly–saying, almost, this is a way a play can begin. The clue for thinking that lies in the rather convoluted details of the 1st Gent’s speech, lines 4-10. His speech is larded with “his,” “he,” “her” etc, but the specifics are lacking (or at least are very vague), and I doubt many people could explain exactly the relationships and events after hearing the speech just once. However, this is the format that in which many tales begin, and Cymbeline is a tale (more on that anon). Notice, too, that the 2nd Gent amounts to little more than a stooge or feed, asking the 1st Gent short questions that elicit further information, and allow the tale to unfold. His questions also serve to break up the 1st Gent’s speech which would otherwise turn out to be 69 line monologue. As for the substance of the information, that too is formulaic–it is a tale of romance in royal circles that is disapproved of, combined with the tale of a thwarted lover, combined with a tale of a royally-adopted son, combined with a tale of two babies stolen shortly after their birth. (I invite you to put the appropriate names to all these–but remembering that in the theatre many of the specifics are omitted, or fly by at break-neck speed. However, in the theatre, it doesn’t matter because carefully resolving the mysteries is part of Shakespeare’s intent, as it is the task of many dramatists to answer the expectations their plays raise as they proceed). This sub-scene closes with two speeches that give yet another clue as to Shakespeare’s purpose:

2nd Gent: That a king’s children should be so conveyed,
So slackly guarded, and the search so slow
That could not trace them!
1st Gent:                Howsoe’er ttis strange,
Or that the negligence may well be laughed at,
Yet is it true, sir.

What Shakespeare does here is to deliberately draw attention to the convenient coincidence of the events, to heighten our awareness that the events are contrived all the while asserting that they are “true.” Drama, like all fictive forms, is a contrivance that we allow ourselves to be lulled into thinking it is “true,” yet simultaneously we know it is a theatrical creation. Only young children actually believe that what they see in the theatre is really happening and will, for instance, call out a warning if they see a “bad guy” trying to harm a “good guy.” Adullts (mostly) don’t; we enter into the game, knowing that it is a game–and yet, of course, there is an elemental “truth” in what we see.

Check out The Shakespeare Diaries.
© 2008

Cymbeline

Cymbeline is really an interesting and entertaining play, once it’s realized what Shakespeare intends, how he deliberately mixes genres, and parodies his own work.